Research. Institution. Smithsonian. Scientific. at the

Transcription

1 A Report by a Panel of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION for the Smithsonian Institiution, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the Scientific Research Smithsonian Institution October 2002 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

2 About the Academy The National Academy of Public Administration is an independent, nonprofit organization chartered by Congress to improve governance at all levels: local, regional, state, national, and international. The Academy s membership of more than 500 Fellows includes public managers, scholars, business executives and labor leaders, current and former cabinet officers, members of Congress, governors, mayors, state legislators, and diplomats. Since its establishment in 1967, the Academy has assisted hundreds of federal agencies, congressional committees, state and local governments, civic organizations, and institutions overseas through problem solving, objective research, rigorous analysis, information sharing, developing strategies for change, and connecting people and ideas. Most reports and papers issued by Academy panels respond to specific requests and needs of public agencies. Projects also address government-wide and broader societal topics identified by the Academy. In addition to government institutions, businesses, foundations, and nonprofit organizations support the Academy.

3 A Report by a Panel of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION for the Smithsonian Institution, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy October 2002 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AT THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PANEL James E. Colvard, Chair C. William Fischer Adam Herbert, Jr. Delores Parron Maxine Singer Jerry R. Schubel

4 Officers of the Academy Mortimer L. Downey, Chair of the Board Carl W. Stenberg, Vice Chair Robert J. O Neill, Jr., President Cora Prifold Beebe, Secretary Sylvester Murray, Treasurer Project Staff J. William Gadsby, Director, Management Studies Gerald (Jake) Barkdoll, Project Director Albert J. Kliman, Senior Consultant Joseph Delfico, Senior Consultant Braddock J. Spear, Research Assistant Jennifer L. Terrell, Research Assistant Martha S. Ditmeyer, Project Associate India N. Young, Communications Associate The views expressed in this document are those of the Panel. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Academy as an institution. ii

5 FOREWORD One of Washington s best-kept secrets is the role that the Smithsonian Institution plays in scientific research, the type that goes far beyond what it displays in its museums on the National Mall. In addition to research on the extensive collection at the Museum of Natural History, the Smithsonian has varied research programs at its Conservation Research Center in Front Royal, Virginia, its astrophysical observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, its Tropical Research Institute headquartered in Panama, its Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Maryland, and its Center for Materials Research and Education in Suitland, Maryland. Questions about continued funding for scientific research were raised during the Fiscal Year 2003 budget process. As a result, the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) and the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences were asked to study numerous issues related to this issue. This report is one of two being issued by the academies. As indicated in these reports, there is agreement that there should be continued appropriations funding for support of scientific research at the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian s role in scientific research is unique and should be preserved as an integral part of the nation s overall research efforts. At the same time, however, Smithsonian management itself can do more to improve communications with the science centers and demonstrate support for an increase in knowledge. This study served as a model of cooperation between the two academies. I want to thank the Panel that directed and guided the NAPA portion of this study and the Committee that carried out the NRC examination. I also extend my appreciation to the project team for its hard work, and to Smithsonian officials and staff for their excellent cooperation. Robert J. O Neill, Jr. President National Academy of Public Administration iii

6 iv

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD iii TABLE OF CONTENTS v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND OF PROJECT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION Organization of the Smithsonian Smithsonian s Science Centers How the Smithsonian is Financed Legal Standing of the Smithsonian THE THREE STUDIES The NRC Study The NAPA Study The Science Commission Study OBSERVATIONS ON CULTURE AND INTERACTION OF SCIENTISTS METHODOLOGY ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT CHAPTER 2: SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH FUNDING AT THE SMITHSONIAN NRC RECOMMENDATIONS DETERMINING SMITHSONIAN S SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BUDGET Accounting System Inconsistent Data Coding Practices Presentation Problems Inconsistent Treatment Of Some Facilities Costs CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION CHAPTER 3. COMPETITION AND CORE SUPPORT BACKGROUND v

8 COMPETITION FOR RESEARCH FUNDS AT THE SMITHSONIAN Competition for External Funds Internal Competition for Funds Competitive Fellowship Appointments RESEARCH FUNDING PROCESSES IN OTHER ORGANIZATIONS Extramural Research Competition Intramural Research Competition Both Types of Competition Dividing Resources Between Intramural and Extramural Research ROLE OF CORE SUPPORT IN COMPETITION Core Support Funding Models CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION CHAPTER 4:THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD ISSUE BACKGROUND FACILITIES AND ADMINISTRATION COSTS Direct Costs F&A Costs Smithsonian s F&A Rates Compared with Others INFLUENCE OF FEDERAL SALARIES ACCESS TO NSF NSF Policies The Smithsonian s Perspective of the NSF Issue Smithsonian s Record in Competing for NSF Grants APPENDICES Appendix A: Panel and Staff A1 Appendix B: NRC Executive Summary B1 Appendix C: Science Commission Members C1 Appendix D: Culture of Smithsonian Principal Investigators D1 Appendix E: Interaction of Scientists from Different Disciplines E1 Appendix F: Interviews Conducted F1 Appendix G: Bibliography G1 Appendix H: Acronyms H1 vi

9 CHARTS AND TABLES Table 1-1. Excerpt From President s 2003 Budget Table 1-2. Timeline of Key Historical Events Chart 1-1. Smithsonian Institution Organization Chart Chart 1-2. FY 2001 Sources of Revenue Table 1-3. Smithsonian Funding Table 2-1. Funding of Smithsonian Science Units Table 2-2. Other Science Center Costs, FY Table 3-1. Smithsonian Science Centers, Grants and Contracts for Research, Table 3-2. Smithsonian Science Centers, External Funding Trends Table 4-1. Smithsonian Research Funding Table 4-2. Smithsonian Science Centers, Indirect Cost Rates Table 4-3. Smithsonian Science Centers, Record of New NSF Grants for Research Table 4-4. Smithsonian Science Centers, Percent of Total New Grant Awards for Research from NSF vii

10 viii

11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Smithsonian Institution is a unique organization, established in 1846 for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men. It has grown over the years and is now composed of 16 museums and galleries, the National Zoo, and numerous research facilities in the United States and abroad. The Smithsonian participates in the annual federal budget process to receive funding though the federal appropriations process. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2001, it received 57 percent of its funding through federal appropriation. The remainder came from government grants and contracts, contributions and private grants, business ventures, and investment earnings. During development of the FY 2003 budget, several issues arose concerning funding of scientific research in the Smithsonian. The President s FY 2003 budget indicated that, of all the research agencies listed, only the Smithsonian did not subject its research to any form of competition. The budget proposed to increase competition by transferring some of the Smithsonian budget to the National Science Foundation (NSF) where it could be used to fund research for which Smithsonian and other organizations researchers could compete. The Smithsonian objected to the characterization of its research and the transfer. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) and the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences were jointly commissioned to study this issue. NRC s assignment was to determine whether there are research programs at the Smithsonian where funding should be awarded through a competitive grant process open to all public and private sector researchers. NAPA s assignment focused on determining Smithsonian research program costs; examining research management models used by other academic institutions, museums, and private organizations; and identifying factors that might give the Smithsonian scientists an unfair advantage over others when competing for funds. The studies scope includes the six science centers that report to the Smithsonian s Under Secretary for Science: the National Museum of Natural History the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory the National Zoological Park the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute the Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center In carrying out its assignment, the NAPA Panel looked at various topics, including the reliability of budget figures for Smithsonian research, the degree to which competition is a factor in Smithsonian research funding, and factors that may produce an uneven playing field in the competitive processes. Because of the organization of the study, some of NAPA s work in these areas was dependent on the NRC findings. NRC s five recommendations are referenced in this report, and the NRC report s executive summary, Funding Smithsonian Scientific Research, is included as Appendix B. NAPA CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The NAPA Panel finds that: Data for Smithsonian scientific research, included in the budget and accompanying explanatory material, engender a low level of confidence. Data for the science centers were found to be more reliable, although there are problems at that level, as well. The Panel recommends that funding decisions and related analyses rely on the actual cost of running the science centers, with appropriate adjustments, rather than the research estimates currently presented in the budget. Appropriations provide the Smithsonian with funds for core support functions and salaries of researchers who develop proposals. Contrary to the impression given in the FY 2003 special budget analysis, Smithsonian researchers compete for (and obtain) a significant proportion of their research funds through competitive grants and contracts. ix

12 The appropriations provide a continuity of core support that makes it possible for Smithsonian scientists to maintain the requisite capacity to compete for grants and contracts. In turn, these grants and contracts provide the necessary funding for associates, post-doctoral researchers, travel, equipment, and other costs for conducting research. The Panel recommends the continuation of core support appropriations for all Smithsonian science centers consistent with the NRC report recommendations. Numerous factors may tilt a competitive process toward different organizations competing for grants and contracts, but Smithsonian researchers do not have a consistent advantage when they seek competitive funding. It is widely held that scientific merit is, and should be, the primary determinant of competitive decisions, although other factors sometimes influence the outcome. The Smithsonian has a lower overhead rate than many other institutions, but this does not appear to provide a significant advantage as grant review panels focus almost entirely on the scientific merit of proposals. Overhead only is a factor when discussing bottom line funding. In addition, some believe that the Smithsonian has an advantage because its researchers receive 12- month salaries under federal appropriations, in contrast to academic year salaries paid by some universities. The NAPA Panel found that this is only one of several compensation and resource factors that may give the Smithsonian or other competitors a theoretical advantage in a given situation. Yet, the Panel found evidence that the Smithsonian is disadvantaged when applying for NSF funds. The situation is not clear, and it appears that perceptions both at NSF and the Smithsonian may be creating barriers. The Panel recommends that the Under Secretary for Science examine the perceptions and practices of the science centers researchers and managers regarding NSF grants, and establish a mechanism for keeping them informed of changes and best practices. The Panel recommends that the Under Secretary for Science meet with the NSF Director to clarify and explore reformulating the Smithsonian-NSF relationship concerning the eligibility of Smithsonian scientists to compete for NSF funding. CONCLUDING COMMENTS The NAPA Panel reviewed and concurs with the NRC Committee s findings and recommendations. Both the Panel and Committee noted some weaknesses in communications between the Smithsonian s central management and the science centers. The NRC report recommends that the Secretary and Board of Regents improve these communications and become strong advocates for the science centers goals and achievements. The NAPA Panel found that scientific staff are seriously concerned that science is no longer recognized as a critical component of the Smithsonian agenda. The NAPA Panel believes that the Secretary has an opportunity to demonstrate support for the increase of knowledge by tying specific institution level fundraising initiatives to scientific endeavors as part of the strategic planning process. The Panel urges the Secretary to seek ways to demonstrate that science is an important priority of the Smithsonian possibly by making the Smithsonian s scientific research activities and their results more public. x

13 The NAPA and NRC studies addressed different aspects of similar issues, making joint coordination and cooperation vital. This was accomplished through joint participation in meetings and frequent staff interaction. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Smithsonian Institution was established by an Act of Congress in August 1846 for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men, fulfilling the purposes contained in the bequest of an Englishman, James Smithson. Today, the Smithsonian is composed of 16 museums and galleries, the National Zoo, and numerous research facilities in the United States and abroad. Federal appropriations and other funding sources support scientific research activities, among others. Although the Smithsonian is unique in this regard in the United States, support of research activities is common for national museums worldwide. During development of the FY 2003 budget, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) proposed an independent review of the Smithsonian science research programs that would specifically address the issue of competition. The Smithsonian, OMB and OSTP asked the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to conduct this review. BACKGROUND OF PROJECT The FY 2003 budget includes a table that categorizes how federal agencies allocate their research funds. The categories range from merit-reviewed and externally evaluated competitive awards to research performed at congressional direction (see Table 1-1). Other categories reflect more limited competition areas, and a category titled inherently unique refers to organizations that direct all research funds to intramural research. Table 1-1 places 100 percent of the Smithsonian s research in the inherently unique category. The Smithsonian previously was aggregated with other small entities in the other category because it has a relatively small research budget. For FY 2003, OMB proposed reducing the Smithsonian s funding by $35.7 million and transferring the funds to the National Science Foundation (NSF). Under this arrangement, the Smithsonian and others were expected to compete for the funds. The Smithsonian strongly protested this proposal, which was designed to increase competition in the research funding process. Chapter 3 details the extent to which the Smithsonian is involved in competitive funding processes. The ensuing discussions about the proposed funding reductions provided the impetus for this study. OMB and OSTP agreed that NRC and NAPA were best equipped to conduct it. The NRC was tasked with determining whether the Smithsonian had research programs with funding appropriately awarded through competitive grant processes open to all public and private sector researchers. NAPA s task was to focus on how the Smithsonian research budget should be revised based on the NRC s findings, and assess whether the Smithsonian enjoyed an unfair advantage given its federal appropriation support in competing for grants. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION The Smithsonian has grown in many ways in its 156 years. Historically significant events, ranging from the 1846 signing of the Act of Organization to the 1999 opening of the National Museum of the American Indian Culture Resources Center, are listed in Table

14 Table 1-1 Excerpt from the President s 2003 Budget By Agency Health and Human Services... Energy... Defense*... National Aeronautics & Space Admin... National Science Foundation... Agriculture**... Commerce... Veterans Affairs... Interior... Transportation... Environmental Protection Agency... Education... Smithsonian Institution... Other... Total... Research Performed at Congressional Direction Inherently Unique Research Merit-Reviewed Research with Limited Competitive Selection Merit-Reviewed Research with Competitive Selection and Internal Evaluation Merit-Reviewed Research with Competitive Selection and External Evaluation ,392 2, ,777 20,126 20,665 23, ,078 1,068 2,382 2, ,720 5, ,012 1,014 2,712 2, ,944 4, ,377 1,550 1,894 2,291 4,185 4, ,700 2,887 3,075 3, ,846 1, ,766 1,824 3,283 3,450 7,922 8,543 5,841 6,444 24,478 27,363 43,290 47,624 Total * Allocation among categories is preliminary. * * Does not include net mandatory funding for USDA Research grant programs of $120 million in FY

15 Particularly important are the six science centers that are this study s focus. The centers were established between 1890 and 1965 and have been widely recognized as world-class institutions throughout the scientific community. Organization of the Smithsonian The Smithsonian is governed by a Board of Regents, whose members act as trustees to ensure that the Institution continues to fulfill the intent of the original bequest. The Board includes members from all three branches of government along with citizen regents. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as Chancellor. The Board of Regent s primary obligation is to manage resources and provide for the care of the collections. It is solely responsible for policy and asset management oversight. For example, a Science Commission, which will receive the NAPA and NRC studies, was established by the Board at the Secretary s recommendation. The Secretary of the Smithsonian is selected by the Board of Regents. He manages the Institution with two Under Secretaries, one for Science, and another for American Museums and National Programs. In addition, a Director for International Art Museums, a Chief Executive Officer for Business Ventures, a Chief Financial Officer, a Chief Information Officer, a Director of Facilities Engineering and Operations and several staff offices report directly to the Secretary. The Smithsonian organizational structure is shown in Chart 1-1. Smithsonian s Science Centers The Smithsonian s scientific research is concentrated in six research centers that report to the Under Secretary for Science. These centers are: The National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), located in Washington DC, hosts the world s largest group of scientists dedicated to the study of natural and cultural history. Much of its research is based on the Smithsonian s collection of more than 140 million specimens of plants, animals, fossils, minerals, rocks, meteorites, and human arti-facts. The museum also has a research station in Fort Pierce, Florida The National Zoological Park (NZP), located in Washington DC, carries out most of its research at the Conservation and Research Center (CRC) in Front Royal, Virginia. The Zoo s research program deals with reproductive biology, veterinary medicine, animal behavior, conservation ecology and nutrition, population management, biodiversity monitoring, and professional training in these disciplines. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO), headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, partners with Harvard University to form the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. The center scientists are engaged in a broad research program in astronomy, astrophysics, earth and space sciences, and science education. SAO has facilities in other locations including, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Hawaii. The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI), located in Panama, conducts research in Panama and elsewhere to understand the behavior, physiology, ecology, and evolution of life in the tropics, including human ecology, social anthropolgy and the archeology of pre-columbian societies. The Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education (SCMRE), located in Suitland, Maryland, provides technical support to the Smithsonian museums in the analysis and conservation needs of their collections. It also supports other museums in the areas of conservation, preservation, technical study, and analysis of museum collections and related materials. The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC), located in Edgewater, Maryland, advances stewardship of the biosphere through interdisciplinary research and educational outreach. SERC s scientists study a variety of interconnected ecosystems at the primary research site and affiliated sites around the world. One scientific research activity is not included in this review: a small research unit within the National Air and Space Museum, which reports to the Under Secretary for Museums. The studies sponsors have agreed that this unit should 3

16 Table 1-2. Timeline of Key Historical Events (Science Units in NAPA Study Bolded) 1846 Smithsonian Act of Organization passes in Congress 1846 President James K. Polk signs Smithsonian Act of Organization into law 1848 Smithsonian publishes its first book, Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 1849 Smithsonian initiates International Exchange Service 1855 Smithsonian Building completed 1858 Smithsonian is designated the National Museum of the United States 1879 Congress establishes the Smithsonian s Bureau of Ethnology 1881 Arts and Industries Building opens in October 1890 Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory is established as a separate bureau 1891 National Zoological Park opens in April in the Valley of Rock Creek 1910 National Museum of Natural History opens in March 1943 Freer Gallery of Art opens 1946 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute is made part of the Smithsonian 1963 Conservation Analytical Laboratory (now Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education) established 1964 National Museum of American History opens in January 1965 Smithsonian Environmental Research Center established 1967 Anacostia Museum opens in September 1968 National Museum of American Art and National Portrait Gallery open in the Old Patent Office Building 1968 Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum becomes part of the Smithsonian 1972 Renwick Gallery opens in January 1972 Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden opens in October 1976 National Air & Space Museum opens in its own facility in July 1978 National Museum of African Art established 1983 Museum Support Center opens in Suitland, Maryland 1987 Arthur M. Sackler Gallery opens in September 1989 National Museum of the American Indian established 1990 National Postal Museum established 1994 National Museum of the American Indian Gustav Heye Center opens in New York City 1999 National Museum of the American Indian Cultural Resources Center opens in Suitland, Maryland 4

17 not be included, but that generally applicable findings and recommendations for the science centers would be applied to it, as well. How the Smithsonian is Financed The Smithsonian receives its revenues from a variety of sources, including federal appropriations, grants and contracts from federal agencies, and private sources. Funds other than federal appropriations are treated as trust funds. As shown in Chart 1-2, 57 percent of the Smithsonian s FY 2001 revenue came from a direct federal appropriation, and the remainder from trust funds. Federal grants and contracts made up more than a quarter of the trust funds and 12 percent of total Smithsonian revenue. The appropriated funds are provided in three accounts: salaries and expenses; repair, restoration, and alteration of facilities; and construction. The Smithsonian normally uses appropriated funds for collections activities, protection services, salaries and staff support, and a small portion of the research activities. The Salaries and Expenses appropriation has increased for the past 3 years as shown in Table 1-3. Chart 1-1. Smithsonian Institution Organization Chart* SECRETARY Advisor to the Secretary with Special focus on the Patent Office Building External Affairs Development Sponsored Projects Secretariat Inspector General Policy and Analysis General Council Diversity Initiatives Equal Employment and Monthly Affairs Advisor to the Secretary with Special focus on the National Museum of the American Indian Under Secretary for Science Under Secretary for American Museums and National Programs Director, International Art Museums Division Chief Executive Officer for Smithsonian Business Ventures Astrophisical Observatory Natural History Museum National Zoo Tropical Research Institute Environmental Research Fellowships National Science Resources Center Center for Materials Research and Education Smithsonian Press Air and Space Museum American Art Museum American Hhistory Museum American Indian Museum Anacostia Museum Archives of American Art Arts and Industries Building Asian Pacific American Program Folklife and Cultural Heritage Latino Initiatives Center Libraries Portrait Gallery Postal Museum National Programs Affiliations Program Associates Program Center for Education and Museum Studies Traveling Exhibition Service Chief Financial Officer Comptroller Contracting Planning and Budgeting Treasurer Facilities Engineering and Operations Engineering, Design and Construction Facilities Planning and Resources Project Management Protection Services Safety and Environmental Management Chief Information Officer Imaging and Photographic Services IT Operations Smithsonian Archives Systems Modernization African Art Museum Arthur M. Sackler Gallery Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum Freer Gallery of Art Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden Business Ventures Chief Financial Officer Smithsonian Magazine Direct Marketing Retail Operations Licensing Media Government Relations Communications Public Affairs Visitors Center Special Events and Protocol Human Resources Human Resources Ombudsman Accessibility Program Exhibits Central * As of September 9,

18 Legal Standing of the Smithsonian The Smithsonian describes itself as a trust instrumentality of the federal government. However, many perceive it to be a federal agency since most of its funding comes from federal appropriations, and most of its employees are federal employees. This issue is important for several reasons, including the Smithsonian s relationship to the Executive Branch generally, and OMB specifically. Its legal status also may shape its relationship with Congress and its standing with federal agencies that fund research. The Smithsonian s relationship, with NSF is especially important and is addressed in Chapter 4. Table 1-3. Smithsonian Funding FISCAL YEAR AMOUNT 2001 Appropriation $406 million 2002 Appropriation $440 million 2003 Request $455 million The legal standing and responsibilities of the Smithsonian, its Board of Regents, and staff have been a matter of longstanding interest and dispute. As a result, court and General Accounting Office (GAO) opinions have been issued. In each case, the underlying issue was whether the Smithsonian was subject to the same laws as federal agencies. Concerning the Smithsonian s status with respect to procurement, the U.S. Comptroller General concluded that the Board of Regents has authority to enter into lease or concession agreements without being subject to any laws requiring advertising of government contracts (1961 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 2585). In a 1963 case, The Controller General ruled that the operation of the National Zoological Park should be treated the same as a government agency when depositing revenues to the Treasury. He said that, It is our understanding that the National Zoological Park is the property of the United States and not a part of the lands appropriated to the Smithsonian and that the Board of Regents was subject to Chart 1-2. FYI 2001 Sources of Revenue Business Ventures 4% Investment Earnings 5% Other 1% Government Contracts & Grants 12% Federal Appropriation 57% Contribution & Private Grants 21% Source: Annual Report for the Smithsonian Institution,

19 all restrictions applicable to government administrative officials. However, he later overturned this decision stating that, the requirements for the deposit of gross amounts of receipts from activities supported by appropriated funds into the general fund of the Treasury as miscellaneous funds need not apply to Zoo operations (1972 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 185). In 1997, the Smithsonian appealed a district court decision that awarded damages to an employee under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C.S. 552a). To be an agency under the Privacy Act, the Court of Appeals reasoned that an entity (the Smithsonian) had to qualify as an authority of the U.S. government under Section 551(1) or have executive department status as defined under Section 552(f) (1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 28771). The court determined that Smithsonian authority appears to be entirely ancillary to its cultural and educational mission, not governmental in nature to count for Section 551(1) purposes. Furthermore, it decided, because the Smithsonian is not an establishment in the executive branch, it cannot fall into any of the conceivably applicable Section 552(f) categories. The earlier district court judgment was reversed because neither condition was met. Distinguishing the Smithsonian s federal appropriation from its trust funds also has been at issue. One case before the U.S. Comptroller General, concerned the Smithsonian s general authority to enter into joint contracts to purchase new acquisitions (1980 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 3152). The U.S. Comptroller General held that the Smithsonian Institution has statutory authority to expend its private, unappropriated fund as the Regents deem best-suited to promote the purposes of the trust. In a separate case, a former Smithsonian employee charged that he was entitled to civil service retirement credit under the Civil Service Retirement System (1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 11240). The court ruled that the employee was hired on to the private roll and paid from private trust funds, not federally appropriated funds. Thus, he was not entitled to federal retirement credit. While these are narrow issues, the decisions point in the same direction that the Smithsonian should not be treated as a federal agency for many purposes. THE THREE STUDIES The NAPA and NRC studies addressed different aspects of similar issues, making joint coordination and cooperation vital. This was accomplished through joint participation in meetings and frequent staff interaction. The specific focus of these studies is detailed below. A third related study, conducted by a Science Commission established by the Smithsonian Board of Regents, took place at the same time as the others. The NRC Study The NRC was asked to examined the following questions: 1. Are there portions of the Smithsonian research portfolio, which for reasons of their special contribution or uniqueness, should be exempted from being prioritized within that field via a competitive peer reviewed grants program open to all researchers in the public and private sector? Conversely, could some or all of the funds now allocated by the federal government as support for Smithsonian science programs be used more effectively for science if the funds were awarded through a competitive process open to all research performers? 2. What are the implications for Smithsonian science programs and for the relevant scientific fields if only those Smithsonian science programs determined to be unique or exempt continue to receive direct federal appropriations? 3. For those exempted Smithsonian science programs, how should the quality of this work be regularly evaluated and compared against other research in the relevant fields? The final NRC report, Funding Smithsonian Scientific Research, is being released concurrent with the NAPA study. So that its conclusions and recommendations could be reviewed and considered for incorporation in this report, NAPA received an advance copy of the report. 7

20 The executive summary of the NRC report is included as Appendix B. The NRC report includes five recommendations: 1. Research is an intrinsic part of the mission of the National Museum of Natural History and National Zoological Park. These centers should continue to be exempt from open competition for research funding because of the uniqueness and special contributions conferred by association with their collections. 2. The Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education occupies a highly specialized research niche that is of unique and major value to museums of the Smithsonian Institution and to the museum community at large. Hence, the Committee believes that the Center should continue to be exempt from open competition for research funding because of its uniqueness and special contributions to the museum community. 3. The Committee believes that the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center should continue to receive federally appropriated research funding. Use of public funds by these facilities is already producing science of the highest quality. Much of the research funding (for other than salary and infrastructure costs) is already obtained via competition. Any benefits of shifting these three facilities to the jurisdiction of another organization would be greatly outweighed by the harm done to their contributions to the relevant scientific fields. 4. Regular in-depth reviews by external advisory committees are essential for maintaining the health, vitality, and scientific excellence of the Smithsonian Institution. Although details of the nature and processes of the reviews may vary to accommodate differences among the six centers, such institutional reviews should be uniformly required for all six Smithsonian science centers and for their individual departments, if warranted by their size. Retrospective external peer review is especially important for areas not routinely engaging in competition for grants and contracts. Regular cycles of review followed by strategic planning offer the best means of ensuring that the quality of Smithsonian s science is maintained. 5. The research programs at the Smithsonian Institution provide essential support to the museums and collections, make substantial contributions to the relevant scientific fields, and fulfill the broader Smithsonian mission to increase and diffuse knowledge. The Committee urges a stronger sense of institutional stewardship for these research programs as integral components of the Smithsonian. The Secretary and the Board of Regents should improve communication with the research centers and become strong advocates for their goals and achievements in a manner that is compelling to the Executive Branch, Congress, and the public. The NAPA Study NAPA was asked to address the following questions: 1. How do other research institutions divide research programs between in-house and competitive programs? 2. Based on an analysis of the Smithsonian scientific research budget, the comparison with comparable research institutions, and the results of the NRC part of the study; what amount of base funding should the Smithsonian Institution apply to its unique research programs? What amount of research funds should be awarded based on a competitive process? 3. If it is determined that some portion of the Smithsonian s base scientific research funding should be subject to competition; what alternative strategies could be considered for competing such funding? What are the implications of potential changes in base support for the overhead rates that would be applicable under the competitive strategies? How do these rates compare with similar research institutions? What mechanisms should be used to help assure a level playing field for such competition? In light of the NRC s recommendations, it was not necessary to directly address many of these 8

21 questions. However, the Panel believes that the research and analysis it did in preparing to answer them provides significant value. Thus, this work is presented along with recommendations that should aid the Smithsonian, OMB, and OSTP in the management and review of the Smithsonian science programs. The Science Commission Study The third study, which is being completed by the Science Commission established by the Smithsonian Board of Regents, is designed to advise the Secretary and the Board of Regents on a variety of matters related to Smithsonian scientific research activities. Congressional language directs the Smithsonian not to make any changes to its science programs until the Science Commission has reported. Early on, the Commission made clear that it viewed the NAPA and NRC studies as important contributions to its work. A cooperative relationship was subsequently maintained between the NAPA Panel and study team and the Chair of the Science Commission. The Science Commission is addressing the following questions: 1. How should the Smithsonian set priorities for scientific research in the years ahead and, in general, carry out its historic mission more effectively? 2. How should scientific research be organized to optimize the use of the Institution s human, physical and financial resources? How should the performance of scientific research by individuals and research departments be evaluated? 3. How can the relationship between research and public programming be enhanced? What suggestions, of any type might the Science Commission have to strengthen research at the Smithsonian? 4. What should be the qualifications of those chosen to lead key scientific research units of the Smithsonian? 5. What should be done to enhance public recognition of Smithsonian science? A list of the Science Commission members is included in Appendix C. OBSERVATIONS ON CULTURE AND INTERACTION OF SCIENTISTS Since it is generally agreed that both the quality and quantity of the Smithsonian s research is dependent on these key players, the NAPA study team focused particular attention on principal investigators. Information was collected about the cultures of the science centers, including examples of how they differ from each other. Although data were collected from a limited sample of investigators the observations may be useful to the Science Commission and Smithsonian management as they approach their tasks. Appendix D summarizes the observations. As the study team reviewed current literature and visited research institutions, it developed an awareness of the importance that research institutions are placing on increased interaction of scientists from different disciplines. This information is contained in Appendix E. METHODOLOGY The views expressed in this document are those of the Panel alone. They do not necessarily reflect the view of the Academy as an institution. The diversity of Smithsonian research, the interdependence of the NAPA and NRC studies, and the scope of the issues addressed by the NAPA Panel necessitated a multifaceted approach to data collection and analysis. The steps taken are summarized below: Interviews were conducted with Smithsonian officials and principal investigators in the science centers, as well as staff in the administrative offices. The principal purpose was to develop a general understanding of the Smithsonian and the nature of the scientific research conducted in the science centers. Group discussions with principal investigators allowed the NAPA study team to collect additional in-depth information. Interviews were conducted with officials from OMB and OSTP to determine their perspectives on the issues under review. 9

22 Targeting Interviews were conducted with associations representing museums, universities, and corporations to help identify individual organizations that could provide useful insights and management models. Interviews were subsequently conducted with individual museums, universities, zoos, a botanical garden, corporations, and other private and public organizations. Appendix F lists all individuals and organizations interviewed, both inside and outside the Smithsonian. To help ensure effective coordination, NAPA study team members attended meetings and participated in informal discussions with members of NRC and the Smithsonian Science Commission, and attended formal NRC meetings. NRC representatives also attended NAPA Panel meetings. Published material was collected, catalogued, and reviewed. This material included budgets, strategic plans, annual reports, documents prepared by the Smithsonian for the Science Commission and NRC, publications from the Smithsonian and other organizations visited, and prior NAPA and NRC reports. A selected bibliography is provided in Appendix G. Panel meetings provided opportunities for the NAPA Panel to direct and oversee the work of the study team during the design of the work plan; data collection and analysis; identification of critical issues; and final report drafting. Three Panel meetings and one teleconference were conducted, including one in which Smithsonian and OMB officials participated. Biographical sketches of the Panel members and the study team are in Appendix A. ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT The remaining chapters are: Chapter 2 which focuses on the funding of Smithsonian Institution scientific research programs Chapter 3 which deals with questions about Smithsonian s involvement in competitive funding of research, and related core support activities Chapter 4 which addresses factors relevant to a level playing field in competitive research funding. These factors include facilities and administrative costs, researcher salaries and access to National Science Foundation (NSF) funding. 10

23 CHAPTER 2 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH FUNDING AT THE SMITHSONIAN Determining the funding strategy and budget amounts for scientific research is a key question for this study. It involves two steps. First, the NRC task was to recommend the research programs that should continue to be funded through direct appropriations, as opposed to those that should be subject to additional competition. Then the NAPA task was to determine the funds associated with these categories of programs. This chapter is principally devoted to issues associated with accurately determining resources for Smithsonian scientific research activities. It references the relevant portions of the NRC study. NRC RECOMMENDATIONS As discussed in Chapter 1, the NRC Committee report made five recommendations pertaining to the Smithsonian s scientific research programs. The three which deal with the approach to funding scientific research are: Research is an intrinsic part of the mission of the National Museum of Natural History and National Zoological Park. These centers should continue to be exempt from open competition for research funding because of the uniqueness and special contributions conferred by association with their collections. The Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education occupies a highly specialized research niche that is of unique and major value to museums of the Smithsonian Institution and to the museum community at large. Hence, the Committee believes that the center should continue to be exempt from open competition for research funding because of its uniqueness and special contributions to the museum community. The Committee believes that the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center should continue to receive federally appropriated research funding. Use of public funds by these facilities is already producing science of the highest quality. Much of the research funding (for other than salary and infrastructure costs) is already obtained via competition. Any benefits of shifting these three facilities to the jurisdiction of another organization would be greatly outweighed by the harm done to their contributions to the relevant scientific fields. The NAPA Panel did not address the specific questions associated with different funding approaches because the NRC committee recommended that all six science centers continue to receive federal appropriations. However, the information developed by the Panel provides valuable insights for stakeholders wishing to understand the Smithsonian s research budget and the level of resources devoted to scientific research there. DETERMINING SMITHSONIAN S SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BUDGET This study was initiated with the presumption that the Smithsonian developed a specific budget for scientific research. During the course of the study, it became apparent that such a budget does not exist. The budget that is presented to the Congress for the Smithsonian includes line items for such operating centers as NMNH, NZP, SAO, SERC, STRI, and SCMRE. Research is discussed in each center s supporting material. There are no separate or aggregate research amounts for Congress to act upon as part of the annual budget request. However, material supporting the President s budget includes an aggregate estimate for research in fact, there are two estimates. A $73 million figure is shown for research in the Program and Financing Statement of the Budget Appendix. 1 This amount reflects an estimate of all research conducted at the Smithsonian, including art, American history, the American Indian, and other forms in addition to scientific. This research estimate has been included in the budget for only two years; it is based on a coding system that includes inconsistencies that diminish its usefulness, as explained in this chapter. In any event, this estimate is not a line item for congressional action. 11